from the ok,-start-your-censors dept

UK ISPs BT and Talktalk challenged the Digital Economy Act soon after it was passed, complaining about how the law was approved, about the implementation details and how it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Unfortunately, the final appeal in that lawsuit has been rejected, and the ISPs may now be forced to start cutting off users and playing the role of copyright cops for the entertainment industry. The court's basically said that there's nothing against European law in the Digital Economy Act. Even worse, it found nothing wrong with putting a significant chunk of the costs (about 25%) on the ISPs themselves. In what world is it reasonably to force an industry to pay to protect another industry from innovation? The only point where the ISPs won was on not having to pay 25% of regulator Ofcom's costs in setting up an appeals body.

What's somewhat ridiculous, however, is to then watch the entertainment industry practically gloat about this result. Geoff Taylor from the BPI responded by claiming that:

"The ISPs' failed legal challenge has meant yet another year of harm to British musicians and creators from illegal filesharing."

That's ridiculous on multiple levels. First of all, prove the harm. We'll wait. And wait. Because BPI can't do it. But, second, that assumes that kicking people off the internet will actually solve "the problem." It won't. The problem is with the fact that the companies represented by BPI refuse to adapt in a significant way, and thus users move towards more convenient, more efficient and better priced offerings.

PACT -- a UK trade group representing "independent creative content producers," the kind of folks who rely on an open internet and who should be terrified about the impact of something like the DEA, again, was extremely condescending to the legitimate concerns of ISPs:

John McVay, CEO of Pact, said: "Rather than needlessly spending more time and money on further legal challenges, BT and TalkTalk now need to focus on working with rights holders and the Government in implementing the Digital Economy Act with immediate effect."

Immediate effect to raise costs and decrease access -- none of which will do a damn thing to get people to pay more for content. Others were equally condescending and obnoxious. There was Equity general secretary Christine Payne:

“Once again a judge has made it extremely clear that the Digital Economy Act is a fair, focused, proportionate and efficient system for consumers and the creative industry,” she added. “Rather than individuals being hauled into court, the DEA makes it possible to conduct a mass consumer education programme. BT and TalkTalk need to stop fighting and start obeying the law.”

Hint to Christine: no "education programme" involves legislation requiring one industry to police users to stop them from doing what they want because a different industry is too lazy or clueless to adapt.

The Film Distributors’ Association president Lord Puttnam CBE hoped the court decision would put an end to “a long chapter of uncertainty, and the DEA can now help in implementing a mass consumer education programme so that people, especially young people, can come to appreciate the damage piracy inflicts on the whole of the creative community”.

Kicking people offline and making ISPs copyright cops is not an education program, and the "problem" the industry faces is not an education problem. People know that copyright infringement is illegal. It's not because of ignorance that they're doing what they do. It's because the industry refuses to offer what they want in a convenient manner at a reasonable price.

The British Video Association’s director general Lavinia Carey added: “Several other countries are adopting this measure and it would be bad for Britain’s creative industries to be left behind more forward thinking nations who are supporting their creative economies at this difficult time of transition towards increased digital consumption during this period of recession.”

Not that many countries, actually, and there's widespread opposition where it's happening, as well as significant concerns about the collateral damage. Over in France, of course, there are efforts under way by opposition parties to dump Hadopi as soon as possible. Pretending that this is some sort of widespread, agreed upon strategy that other countries are adopting widely is simply false.

But, in the end, this reaction shows how the industry continues to have its collective head in the sand on this particular issue. They think that users just need "education." That's wrong. It's the industry that needs education. It needs innovation on how to adapt, on how to meet consumers needs and on how to actually embrace what the technology allows. Until it does that, no "education program" is going to help... and the collateral damage of the DEA's program is only going to make things worse, and make sure that another generation of young people have no respect at all for the entertainment industry.

Utility Companies

You need a license to operate a television in Britain, right? I suppose with that kind of thinking, they were predisposed to having such a law and a ruling like this to support the law.

Still, I wonder if the electrical power company will be held responsible next because without them, the bits would not flow down the series of tubes that the ISPs provide. Should they not also contribute to the education of UK youth? What better way to educate than to plunge them into darkness?

How do I get a job as a copyright cop?

I want a job as a copyright cop. It seems that copyright police will have more authority than any other type of law enforcement. I can kick in doors, confiscate computers and servers, extradite people from all over the world and fine them $85,000 per song. It sounds like the ultimate power trip.

Hard to see how consumers won't lose out in this ruling. The ISP's are sure to pass these costs onto the consumer. Not only will it become more expensive for consumers to own a broadband connection, but they'll also be at risk from losing that connection. I'm not going to say they're all angels who would never enact in illegal downloading, but the potential for someone else to use another person's net connection to download is there.

Besides, what's to stop ppl from just using a VPN or finding other methods to hide their IP? Kids these days are pretty savvy when it comes to finding ways to go around these types of things. The content industries can keep wasting time and money playing whack-a-mole, but they'll never get them all.

Logical next step for the ISP

The logical next step for ISPs would be to agree to terminate any contract (business or private) for every organized rights holder. Without access to the internet they can't find copyright violations and thus can't create extra costs for the ISPs. And since the right holder need to identify themselves to the ISP to make their claims known, finding them should not be a problem.

Re: Logical next step for the ISP

AC #8, your plan is brilliant. Even from a cost/benefit perspective. Surely the ISPs would lose out on less money from disconnecting a handful litigious rights-holders than they would by disconnecting every alleged pirate and blocking a good chunk of the web.

The making of a monster

I am only happy to see that the roll-out of the evil DEA has now been delayed further to middle or late 2013. There are cost related SIs needing to pass through both houses and then needing to be approved by the EU. We can only hope further protests and changes will create further delays.

I just can't see how putting the general public under attack will ever win the entertainment industry or politicians any support when it will only lead to anger.

In my opinion the DEA is only one extremely bad law that is doomed to fail. Even most of the entertainment industry see it as too expensive anyway and where there are better options. Their best choice now is just to dig a big hole, bury the DEA, and then pretend it all never happened.

Instead they keep pumping life energy into this monster zombie law commanding it to "Rise and attack the local city". "Roar, I smell infringement, must kill Internet connection"

this is typical UK strategy. let other countries try DEA, find out that there is massive opposition to the measures in it, that there is no benefit whatsoever to the industries or artists, only harm to the consumers and then they go ahead and implement it. the thing that is constantly ignored by these industry morons and those that put the wrong things to the forefront is the impact on the multitude of other industries/companies whilst supporting just the entertainment industry, an industry that can be lived without. stopping people from file sharing without giving a viable, affordable alternative wont work! it was the same with the minimum working wage. that had been tried in countries previously, found it didn't work because companies were still able to get away with paying lower rates and that the pay was set too low to allow people to live, then the UK introduced it. thick as fuck! so much for Nick Clegg as well. he said he wanted to get useless laws repealed. we're still waiting! just as big a liar as Cameron!

Re: Utility Companies

Re: Actually, because i have a TV licence i fell i have already paid for everything

All of you in the UK should totally BOYCOTT these MAFIAA who have screwed up your lives.Seems like you guys have a really bad problem with these greedy MAFIAA.
I read stories about people getting fines for playing Radios in Stores, fining an old lady for singing songs, loss of Internet Rights, ETC.
And all of this and more is caused by the Greedy Corporates who own the Studios.
Rise Up all of you !!!

What's stupid is that there are ways to circumvent this anyhow. If you know how to, you can make bit torrent or other programs post a false IP or host name when people try to download stuff from you. So basically they just wasted a lot of money for nothing. Circumventing is as easy as googling an article. Sigh. Will the legacy companies never learn? Apparently, not. Lawl.

the decision makers have no idea what they are doing...

Having had brief meetings with people much like those involved in PACT and the BPI I have come to the understanding that they are thick headed, ignorant people with ego's the size of Russia.

Even if they are proven wrong through their own ignorance, their ego's supreme size will not let them see it and so they plow full steam ahead into the wrong direction.

People like this can NOT be sat down and pleaded to in a sensible, logical fashion because they do not work in that way and therefore do not understand good sense and logic.

This is why when you delve into the realm of IP rights protection you end up in a place not ruled by logic or good sense.

The only way to beat this so far as I can tell is to somehow oust the heads of BPI, PACT and other organisations like them, and replace them with people who can be diplomatic without ego involved and come to a reasonable, real-world conclusion that is not excessively one-sided in their favor.

Re: Re: Actually, because i have a TV licence i fell i have already paid for everything

Well, I can tell you that the industry has lost at least one more paying customer. I'm done with all this stupid mess. I am going to just dive into the free shows offered online.

I have not bothered watching regular TV in years. Netflix burned me with their price hike. I just recently tried them again but it is just not worth it. I am sick and tired of dealing with DRM bull shit and not being able to watch what I want even when paying for it.

That really is the trouble here and something they refuse to understand. I am not going to keep paying for them to treat me like a criminal. If they want to treat me like a crook I might as well go ahead and act like one.

Re: Utility Companies

You need a license to operate a television in Britain, right?
It is a license, but it's like a tax, which you need to pay if you have a television that receives BBC broadcasts, since the BBC is funded by the tax-payers. Interestingly, this doesn't apply to legitimate live web streaming, nor to radio. Just BBC on TV. If you have a TV that isn't receiving any broadcasts (No aerial for example) then you don't need the license. If you have a card in your PC that receives TV broadcasts (But don't have a TV) then you don't need a license.

It's a dumb law regarding a dumb tax for a dumb network, but a lot of people here think the BBC is the bee's knees, so when someone says 'the TV license is ridiculous and the government shouldn't have its own network' then people look at you like a loon, as if they don't remember Top Gear (Which is awesome but why are the tax-payers funding it?) and The Teletubbies (Do I need to say anything here?) and so on, not to mention the fact that some people don't even watch BBC and still have to (or are supposed to) pay the TV license.

Personally I've never paid it, so I suppose if I watch any BBC broadcast, then that's technically and morally analogous to pirating media. If only piracy really did harm creators, then I would be able to launch a one-man campaign to kill the BBC by watching BBC News 24 all day every day.

Re: Utility Companies

Supporting the Entertainment Industry

After seeing the greediness of the entertainment industry, the presumptuousness that people will pay them for content served in obsolete formats instead of digital content at a reasonable price, I've decided I'm never buying content from the entertainment industry sector again. Shut down innovation, and you'll shut the door between yourselves and all future generations. Shot yourself in the foot. Say hello to the world of Rdio, Pandora, Youtube, and Google Video type sites.

Re: DEA bad, CCDP worse

In the online SOPA protests, a bunch of sites blacked out for a single day and it generated a massive response. Imagine the kind of response it would get if Britain's largest ISPs shut down and told people that they would resume operations when the DEA was repealed. When anyone tries to access the net, pop up a page explaining what's happened and urging people to contact their government.

How long would the law stand with millions of angry people demanding internet access back?

Sure, they'd lose some subscribers in the short term, but if the majority of the ISPs did this, the customers would have nowhere to defect to. So people's only choice would be to wait it out or cancel all internet access completely, which isn't too practical in today's world.

Re: Re: Utility Companies

"It is a license, but it's like a tax, which you need to pay if you have a television that receives BBC broadcasts, since the BBC is funded by the tax-payers. Interestingly, this doesn't apply to legitimate live web streaming, nor to radio. Just BBC on TV. If you have a TV that isn't receiving any broadcasts (No aerial for example) then you don't need the license. If you have a card in your PC that receives TV broadcasts (But don't have a TV) then you don't need a license."

Over the water in Ireland. They are getting ready to introduce a "Media Tax" for RTÉ (The National Network); basically if you have *any* device that can watch RTÉ you have to pay this tax. That includes everything from computers to phones. So they are just going to charge every household with it. RTÉ is a terrible station; the only thing I have seen on it in the last five years was the news, even that I can live without.

In the online SOPA protests, a bunch of sites blacked out for a single day and it generated a massive response. Imagine the kind of response it would get if Britain's largest ISPs shut down and told people that they would resume operations when the DEA was repealed. When anyone tries to access the net, pop up a page explaining what's happened and urging people to contact their government.

How long would the law stand with millions of angry people demanding internet access back?

Sure, they'd lose some subscribers in the short term, but if the majority of the ISPs did this, the customers would have nowhere to defect to. So people's only choice would be to wait it out or cancel all internet access completely, which isn't too practical in today's world.

Step #2: In a few years amend the law to force ISPs to kick people off the Internet who speak out against government, or better yet, send their names and addresses to the Cops and have them arrested for 'attempting to overthrow the government'.

"In what world is it reasonably to force an industry to pay to protect another industry from innovation?"

It's not innovation, it's piracy pure and simple. I could claim that a chop shop is an innovation to the autoparts industry but it won't make it true.

Innovation would be someone working WITH the entertainment industry as opposed to distributing illegal copies of someone elses work. Innovation would be someone inventing a means to track all the piracy and send out remittance notices to violators of copyright. Innovation would be a method for securing digital works to devices owned by one individual. Innovation isn't taking something someone else has created and allowing 100,000 people to listen/watch it. Innovation isn't yet another video streaming service. Innovation isn't yet another file sharing service. Innovation isn't yet another cyberlocker.

We are about to hit a critical point, one in which the competition for internet media distribution reaches a critical mass. The existing services will be considered "legacy" internet services. The next few years will see the entertainment industry investing heavily in digital media delivered across the internet. Your supposedly "innovative" internet services will be shocked as studios begin making available their entire catalog. How will services like Netflix, Amazon or even iTunes compete? Without original content those services will become the "legacy" internet distribution networks.

can someone tell what else a person can buy but then cant adapt, sell or give away without stopping it from working? i can resell a tv without paying the manufacturer again, it still works, i can resell a car without paying the manufacturer again, it still works, i can change the wheels or anything else on it without asking the manufacturer or paying the manufacturer again and it still works. why then, can i not do what i want with a little plastic disk without it stopping working or having to pay for it again (and again and again and again!) absolutely ridiculous! then, to find i can be fined, jailed, even be cut off from a global service which is a necessity for some things like banking and bill paying now (no alternatives any more!)for an unspecified time because i shared that little disk of plastic with someone else is totally unacceptable!

Re: How do I get a job as a copyright cop?

Don't forget all the great movies and music you will get while "investigating" those hard drives. So when your not feeling up to kicking in any doors you can kick back and "examine" the evidence with some popcorn and a soda.

Re: Actually, because i have a TV licence i fell i have already paid for everything

I've heard this from a few people, and the answer is... not really. You have a licence to use BBC content and to use your hardware to receive broadcasts, but there can be a number of restrictions placed on the way the BBC themselves have licensed that content. That's why, for example, Family Guy can't be streamed on iPlayer even though it's on BBC3 every day, and why certain content can be streamed but not downloaded.

It's a pain in the arse for sure, but this is the way the industry is set up. Yet another reason to revamp the stupid licensing models rather than trying to sue those people who just want the content they feel they paid for, of course, but it's the way things are until they see sense. If you download content and it's not via iPlayer or some similar system through another provider (Sky Player, 4OD, etc.), you're technically pirating no matter how much you paid for your TV licence.

Re: Supporting the Entertainment Industry

Im gonna chime in and say that i feel the exact same way, i refuse to buy anything from them until they acknowledge that they fucked up and they take drastic action to change and provide what we are actually willing to pay for, and i tell ya, i can easilly see my self never buying a damn product from these twats, not now not the near future, and ill be sure to inform and generally badmouth content providers to any who bring the subject up, theres some free advertisement for you!
They might be earning their profits now, but i dont see that lasting without drastic changes to their business model

Im wondering, if there are others willing to impose a self ban on content from the crony providers? With the exception perhaps to some "classic" content, which is cool, as they tend to be few and far between these days.

I wonder if low dvd profits would make them start listening, if we did a week long protest, where those willing, stopped buying media from content providers, i wonder if that would show up in their finance history, might be enough to affect their finance forcast!
I wonder, do these content providers have shareholders, would be nice if they did, would love to be in one of their meetings when a content provider is having a piss poor finance report, i'd probably be the only one in the room clapping!

Re: The making of a monster

Re:

I would love for that to work, but i dont see it actually working unless ALL or at least the very majority them do it.
If only one does it, it more then likely will lead to a few lost customers, which isn't what we want, but if majority do it, i can deffinatly see that being a very powerfull message, a message that im, as a broadband customer, am more then willing to forgo one days worth of internet access, as long as they make everyones bill reflect the protest, to avoid customer backlash by those unwilling to support it. Plus, less backlash from the government, if the majority of isp's are involved, much more harder then one lone isp

charge away, UK copyright cops....

the guardian article points out

Rights holders have agreed to foot 75% of the costs in each of the three fees.

ok, which rights holders? Everyone accused is duty bound now to start appealing, and watch the costs skyrocket for the rights holders. How long will rights holders push for the law when they a) (er.. um..) lose sales to to piracy and b) lose money (real money) paying for the appeals group that hears the counterclaims of people that didn't buy anything from them...

Yup. Yup.

When generations of selective breeding have ensured that there are a majority of Hereditary Stoopids in High Places and a relatively small number of more-evolved Clever Foxes in low places, one can expect much posturing and puffery to ensue, but little of useful substance to emerge. In this case, the foxes were handed what they demanded, no problems were solved, and the folks in the middle are just going to have to become accustomed to touching a forelock and genuflecting upon demand before yet another new master. (If they desire continued access to Ye Bad Olde Internet.) One doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon or hold an advanced degree in astrology to predict the outcome of genetically-predisposed-to-gullibility meets Machiavellian.

You say "yet another" like these things didn't just come into existence in the last couple decades.

"Your supposedly "innovative" internet services will be shocked as studios begin making available their entire catalog."

Everyone would be shocked, because they have fought against this forever and continue to fight it to this day. Unless of course by "make available" you mean release 30 year old movies for the full retail price of a new movie with super restrictive DRM that will make the movie unwatchable in 5 years. That wouldn't shock anyone.

Re:

Yeah, sure, because you can't use video streaming services, file sharing services and cyberlockers for anything else but illegal copies...

"Innovation would be someone working WITH the entertainment industry as opposed to distributing illegal copies of someone elses work."

I'm sure Mike would work WITH the entertainment industry if they'd be interested - but they are not.

"Innovation would be someone inventing a means to track all the piracy and send out remittance notices to violators of copyright."

That's not innovation, that's the entertainment industry's wet dream.

"Innovation would be a method for securing digital works to devices owned by one individual."

You really don't understand the nature of bits and bytes, do you?

"Innovation isn't taking something someone else has created and allowing 100,000 people to listen/watch it."

But it's ok if I let my family watch with me, right? And if I invite a friend? Or two? Where's the limit? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? Hmmmm....

"Without original content those services will become the "legacy" internet distribution networks."

From the moment original content (a music track, a movie...) is released (aka converted to 1s and 0s) it has inherently become legacy. There is no way to impede that. And that's not because of lack of effort. It has been tried again and again, but there is no way to tell a zero to be zero ONLY under certain circumstances and disguise as one under others: It is either zero or it is one.

Re:

I was gonna ignore this rant but what the heck, why not.

"Innovation would be someone inventing a means to track all the piracy and send out remittance notices to violators of copyright. Innovation would be a method for securing digital works to devices owned by one individual."

In your world, that must mean innovation would be "securing" a book to ensure that only the first purchaser could read it in their own home (and never move) and never, ever lend it out to friend they might think is interested in it.

"Innovation isn't yet another video streaming service." I have to assume that you must mean that would include streaming services offered by networks too.

"The next few years will see the entertainment industry investing heavily in digital media delivered across the internet."

You mean an industry that has had better than a decade to do just that will actually, finally do it? And given their increasingly poor consumer relationships just who, exactly, do you expect will buy from them unless they're forced to?

And all at a price people will actually pay, unless forced to?

"How will services like Netflix, Amazon or even iTunes compete?"

That makes sense. An industry that preaches on about things like sanctity of contracts (regional releases and distribution) will break contracts with brands people trust in order to do business with brands they don't trust or like? Isn't that kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

Even should the entertainment industry enter the Web market in a big way I don't see an end to piracy and if they enter in the self-entitled and self-serving way their constant statements and whining shows then I'd actually expect it to increase if they become the only choice out there.

They burned their bridges with the consumer market long, long ago and they haven't even poured a secure foundation for anything new.

Re: Re: Re:

"Just because something it technically possible doesn't make it right. That's a lesson that needs to be learned here."

Sorry, I refuse to learn a lesson which the entertainment industry itself does not heed. Otherwise they would have made me pay ONCE to watch star wars episode IV and not

- twice at the cinema back in the seventies.
- a dozen of times to rent a VHS.
- again for buying a VHS.
- once more at the cinema to see the special edition.
- again for buying a VHS special edition.
- again for buying a DVD (with only the special edition on it)

I stopped there although I could have bought another DVD with the original version on it. I could have bought the blue-ray. And I could go back to the cinemas sometimes in the future to see it 3D.

The black hole called entertainment industry got me, you and almost everybody else on this planet used to pay again and again and again THE FULL PRICE for the same content with a different package for so long, that most of the people - including you - still think it is RIGHT. And because it was technically possible the black hole sucked in all the money it could get, no matter if it was RIGHT or WRONG.

But now that the technically possible has disabled the entertainment industry from continuing to milk the cow until it bleeds from their udder, they claim moral high ground.

Re: Re: Re:

"Just because something it technically possible doesn't make it right. That's a lesson that needs to be learned here."

I think the lesson YOU need to learn here is no one is saying just because it's possible makes it right. What people here are saying is this is happening, this is going to keep happening, there is nothing you can do short of cutting off the entire internet to stop this, so rather than fight something to the extreme that can't be fought in such a manner and which still won't eliminate the problem or causes of it, deal with it by beating the "pirates" at their own game and move on.

Or better and more simply put, people want your products. They want them in a variety of different formats and usable on any device they may own, reasonably priced, conveniently and easily available and with no restrictions (that make using your products difficult). That's it. As simply as can be stated, and has been stated by many people here on this site.

Your restrictions, your DRM, your windowing, your etc. have no place in the modern world. If the pirates can offer the same products with none of that, why can't you? And please, stop saying "well, they have no cost blah blah blah". That may be true, but they also don't have your products right off the bat the way you do, as the copyright holder. In fact, Netflix and iTunes alone should be enough to show you that people are willing to pay for access to your products in a manner that's convenient to them. Steam is another example of simplicity and profitability that competes and surpasses the "pirate experience". So compete, innovate, etc.

"You can use them plenty for legal stuff. You could watch Sita Sings the Blues over and over again, or watch one of Mike's truly stunning presentations. "

Ah, now you can use them for plenty of legal stuff. I really wish we could tie ACs to their comments, because I have the sneaking suspicion you might be one of the ones who referred to cyberlockers' current actions as "scurrying" to hide their "true nature and activities".

But either way, the comment you're replying to was made in regards to the following original comment, by an AC with views similar to your own, his comment was as follows in regards to cyberlockers, file sharing services and video streaming services..."It's not innovation, it's piracy pure and simple."

So what the AC you replied to was saying (in a sarcastic manner) was that they OBVIOUSLY have no use beyond piracy. You and he agree, they do have use. Of course you're quick shot at Nina and Mike kinda puts you more in line with the original AC saying "piracy pure and simple" than "yes, while there are some legal uses, that doesn't make the technology okay", which is how you're coming off as almost saying. Oh, it's technically possible to do legal things with this technology (for example... shot at Nina and shot at Mike), but that doesn't make it right. So, if the technology is legal and has legal uses, but it's a minority that uses it for illegal purposes, what do we do? Do you suggest we outlaw the making of firearms? Perhaps do the same for syringes, straws, spoons and sandwich bags? Just because it's technically possible to use all those for legitimate and legal reasons, that doesn't make their use or creation right. Not when there are people robbing convenient stores with guns, to get money to score a fix, that comes in the corner of a sandwich bag, which they then prep on a spoon (or snort), then intravenously take using a syringe. FOR SHAME!

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

No, securing it to EVERY device YOU own. Just like Apple allows 5 copies to exist on different devices YOU own. I don't hear people bitching about iTunes locking you down to 5 devices (iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, Apple TV, etc..)

Just because you're part of Masnick's cult where pro-piracy and anti-industry pundits spout their propaganda doesn't mean that the marjority of people share your views. Go out into the real world, step away from TechDirt and you can see that people still want Hollywood movies, they still want music from record labels.

Techdirt is a haven for the anti-industry subculture to come together and feel like their minority views are actually a majority. The truth is, Techdirt isn't a friend of the entertainment industry. So much vitriol misinformation and propaganda has come from this site there is no salvaging the nacent relationship between Mike and the recording companies, movie studios, creative professional organizations, etc... He has burned that bridge. All of his grandstanding and proselytizing regarding the "innovation" of piracy has sacrificed his position with the media companies.

How many enemies can they make?

The entertainment industry obviously doesn't care about its consumer base. They treat all of their customers as criminals and expect to rehabilitate them through education.

Now the entertainment industry is waging war on new fronts. Attacking the tech sector in different places. Google, Facebook, and the ISPs are the newest enemies of the entertainment industry.

So let's take a look at the Big Content battle plan, Step 1. Criminalize and shit on consumer base. Step 2. Threaten, bully, and alienate the platforms that the consumer base uses to consume our content. Step 3. Wait for the money to come pouring in.

Instead of those 3 steps, I think the Entertainment Industry needs a good 12 step program.

Re: Re: Re:

No, securing it to EVERY device YOU own. Just like Apple allows 5 copies to exist on different devices YOU own. I don't hear people bitching about iTunes locking you down to 5 devices (iPods, iPhones, iPads, computers, Apple TV, etc..)

Re: Re: Utility Companies

You don't need a licence to watch catch-up TV like iplayer and it's ilk. But if you're watching / recording as a programme is being shown on air, then you'll need a licence, doesn't matter if it's on your tv or computer.

Re: Re: Re:

"I don't hear people bitching about iTunes locking you down to 5 devices"

Are you seriously gonna make that argument, .........bollocks..... put it this way, if that were true, there wouldn't be as many android users as there are now

Interesting to know your stance on this story, and the bringing up of apple, by chance do you own some of their products, if so, its a nice insight into the psychi of some of those who by a certain product

Re: How do I get a job as a copyright cop?

Re: Re: Re:

"You could watch Sita Sings the Blues over and over again, or watch one of Mike's truly stunning presentations. "

i've said before and I'll say again. What is it with you and your abject hatred of Nina Paley? A content creator who dared to violate some sacred code of your masters? Yeah, we get it, you watched a movie (legally, for free!) and didn't like it. I watched some of the crap shovelled by your beloved corporate machine and hated it.

Guess which I'd rather watch? Ooh, look at that, my tastes differ from yours! That must mean my opinions are void somehow, right?

"Just because something it technically possible doesn't make it right. That's a lesson that needs to be learned here"

Perhaps starting with "just because I can be an obnoxious, hateful moron online doesn't mean I should be", I hope...

Re: Re: Re:

Really? Either you're not really listening or you don't hang around with people who have come across those restrictions... yet... Maybe you just hang around with Apple fanboys who haven't had the joy of trying to move their legally purchased content to a competing device yet. That's the funny thing about DRM - most people don't care about it, right up until the point where it rapes them up the ass and they learn they either have to buy their content again to use it or pirate to get what they paid for.

" you can see that people still want Hollywood movies, they still want music from record labels."

...and if you understood the arguments actually made here, you'd see that neither of these is a fundamental problem, nor something that people would object to if said companies catered to their customers' actual needs.

"Techdirt is a haven for the anti-industry subculture "

But enough about your imagined black & white reality. How are things here on Earth?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Serious? Is that what you think, that I would hawk Apple products to the Freebies at Techdirt? Mike has stated in the past he doesn't buy content from Apple, and so many of the zombies here are already Android fanboys. Personally (though a lot of people and even technology reviewers feel the same way) I think Android is fragmented with all the "customized" (read censored) Android Markets, and the fact that apps wont work on all devices. It was a nice concept but it has been executed very poorly by a lot of the manufacturers. Guess what happens? People think, I hate this ANDROID phone when really the problem is with the manufacturer.

Dear BT/Talktalk subscriber

I apologize to be the bearer of bad news, but recent government regulation, most notably the Digital Economy Act, has pushed us into the unenviable position of having to increase costs, and decrease service. Your monthly internet bill has been increased by £15 to pay for the equipment and software required by this new legislation.

If you download any music or movies, even legally, you will get kicked off the internet. There is no recourse we can offer you, and all of our competitors are under the same restriction. Please complain to your local party member.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Slightly cheeky to call android fans "zombies",....oh, im sure there are a few, but lets put it into perpective, there a fare few apple sheep out there too.........dont get me wrong here, i fucking hate getting involved in this fanboy war, so im in no way shape or form trying start something here, in the end, you brought up some valid points in a non-ish fanboyish way (although, points i might add, can be fixed on the software side of things given time and clearvoyance).

Yes, android has its problems, aswell as apple, (i really dont agree with their suing mentality, aswell as other things, which ill keep to myself, in the hopes of avoiding a flame war), at end of the day though, both have the potential to fix and improve upon their products, lets just hope they'll always have their willingness

Both have good points as well as bad, its just a matter of perspective in what your looking for and willing to accept.

Re: Re:

Re:

It's not innovation, it's piracy pure and simple.

For you, the question is about piracy. However, the methods being proposed harms the ability to produce tools & services that are used to innovate in areas that have absolutely nothing to do with piracy. On the internet side of things, the objections have nothing to do with piracy. The objections have to do with the destruction of the very things that make the internet worthwhile. Hint: what makes the internet worthwhile is unrelated to movies, TV, books, music, or any of that -- whether pirated or not.

Your supposedly "innovative" internet services will be shocked as studios begin making available their entire catalog. How will services like Netflix, Amazon or even iTunes compete? Without original content those services will become the "legacy" internet distribution networks.

I sincerely and strongly hope that what you say is true. Everybody would win! I don't think it will happen, but I hope it does.

I'm curious about why you bring up Netflix et. al. Do you think that these services are critical to the internet? If so, then I see the worldview difference between us: these services are incidental to, not central to, the internet.

Not so long ago, in a universe not so distant... Or different

-Lord Offplumb: I say, Reginald! It says here (gestures
with his copy of The Sun) that Lord Cockshur has lost his
yacht to pirates.
-Lord Snidebottom: A despicable act! But I rather recall
that I learned at university that Britain and its
colonies no longer practice privateering.
-Lord Offplumb: Apparently the tradition has been
resurrected by the lower classes. It is so reported.
On this very page. The one that follows page three.
-Smithers: [Intruding, bowing.] Beg pardon, m'lud. The
telephone. It is Minister Taylor m'lud.
-Lord Snidebottom: Thank you, Smithers. [Takes the
proffered phone handset.] This is Lord Snidebottom.
-Lord Snidebottom: Yes, we have indeed seen it. Yes. We
agree completely. We will. Good bye.
-Lord Offplumb: Well? Well?
-Lord Snidebottom: It is true. Exactly as written.
-Lord Offplumb: No!
-Lord Snidebottom: I am afraid so.
-Lord Offplumb: Then...
-Lord Snidebottom: [Eyes wide.] Our property is no longer
safe!
-Lord Offplumb: No! Our yachts... ?
-Lord Snidebottom: One might find oneself awakened in the
midst of night by a mob at the gate of one's estate.
-Lord Offplumb: A mob! With pitchforks! And torches! And
pointy sticks!
-Lord Snidebottom: Like the Olde Days. They'll lay siege
to the manor!
-Lord Offplumb: As they did before there were yachts.
-Lord Snidebottom: And... Confiscate... Our...
-Lord Offplumb: [Gasps in horror.] Yachts... !
-Lord Snidebottom: With diminished property, our titles are
without meaning or consequence!
-Lord Offplumb: Our lives of idle privilege and inherited
wealth and authority are under threat. By mere vassals!
Is nothing sacred?! Have they no respect?!
-Lord Snidebottom: Something must be done! And with the
greatest possible alacrity!
-Lord Offplumb: Indubitably! We cannot permit ourselves to
be any further diminished by this misbegotten rabble.
-Lord Snidebottom: This shall go no further. [Puffing
himself up with indignation.] We will put an end to
this!
-Lord Offplumb: But how? What shall we do?
-Lord Snidebottom: We shall craft a bill! A bill that will
serve to remind vassals that /they/ are the governed,
and that only those of us who have titles are fit to
govern. And we shall demonstrate our boundless
munificence in spite of the provocation they've given;
we will not be unduly harsh.
-Lord Offplumb: In the face of such a bill, none would dare
seize our yachts!
-Lord Snidebottom: Or in any other way diminish our
personal wealth. Quite the contrary! We will craft
this bill in such a way as to ensure that those who have
such elevated stature as ourselves remain thus.
-Lord Offplumb: Let us depart forthwith to Westminster!
-Reginald: Smithers!
-Smithers: M'lud?
-Reginald: Have the hands prepare the horseless carriage!
We depart straightaway.
-Smithers: Sah!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"And look at all the bridges he burned. No one ever sold anything on iTunes after that, and the major labels all lived happily ever after, the end."

You took my comment about Masnick having burned his bridge and compared it to Steve Jobs. That is what you did. I called you out on it, and you denied what you did.

The reason the Content owners worked with Apple was because Apple INCLUDES DRM in their content distribution. Mike has opted to preach that the people demand DRM-free content. Well Mike, which is it, if they are demanding the DRM free content, why is iTunes still in business?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

iTunes for music I believe is free of DRM for half a decade by now, but lets assume there are still DRM'ed stuff in there, is not like is difficult to "rip it", just convert to another format and the DRM is gone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You took my comment about Masnick having burned his bridge and compared it to Steve Jobs. "

No he didn't, as anyone with a basic understanding of written English would notice. You asked, essentially, who was complaining about DRM. Modplan stated (correctly) that even Steve Jobs had been opposed to it. Reading comprehension is still something you lack.

"The reason the Content owners worked with Apple was because Apple INCLUDES DRM in their content distribution."

...which skewed the market massively, allowing Apple to dominate the digital music industry (something which the labels bitched about, even though their insistance on DRM caused it).

"if they are demanding the DRM free content, why is iTunes still in business?"

Because iTunes removed the DRM requirement from their music in 2007 and no longer sell DRMed music?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You took my comment about Masnick having burned his bridge and compared it to Steve Jobs. That is what you did. I called you out on it, and you denied what you did.

Erm, no. But keep on misrepresenting what people say though.

As pointed out, I showed how your specific claim of no one bitching about DRM was wrong by showing Steve Jobs 5 years ago presenting clearly that DRM was not the future. I then took your comment about how Mike had apparently burned bridges with the entertainment industry for being anti-DRM (I didn't realise he had any in the first place when it came to the major labels, but whatever) and turned it around to help make the point that despite Steve Jobs arguing against DRM, not only did they continue doing business, the labels eventually relented and removed DRM from their music on iTunes.

No direct comparison with Mike needed, though even if I did grant you that, I'm not sure how it's relevant at all to attempt to insult Mike either way, other than to distract from the point at hand. You made a factually incorrect statement in a lazy attempt to make a personal attack, and responded with another irrelevant personal attack when proven wrong.

Re: Re: Re:

The truth is, Techdirt isn't a friend of the entertainment industry. So much vitriol misinformation and propaganda has come from this site there is no salvaging the nacent relationship between Mike and the recording companies, movie studios, creative professional organizations, etc... He has burned that bridge. All of his grandstanding and proselytizing regarding the "innovation" of piracy has sacrificed his position with the media companies.

I'll have to tell that to the RIAA board member who contacted me today about coming to speak to his partners about my vision for the future. Clearly, that bridge is burned, right?

Trust me, there are reasonable people in the industry who see where things are going.

And then there are those who will fail. I'm not really worried about how those people view me.